This story, for me, highlights the need for more user awareness at a time when these quadcopters are becoming easier and cheaper to purchase. I don’t work directly in the aerial surveying field, but I’ve spoken several times with those that do. The CAA is fairly stringent with commercial drone operators and, I believe, demands to see a physical demonstration of the type of work you wish to carry out. Any changes made to your operation, for significant commercial gain, need to be demonstrated further. For agricultural, forestry or archaeological surveys it makes good financial sense to hire a commercial remote-surveying company who put up a small copter for a couple of hours. By contrast, any idiot can buy one of these things for private use and fly it anywhere without any qualifications or comprehension of the risks involved. I imagine there will be a wave of these things after Christmas, and the cheaper models with more ‘relaxed’ build tolerances will lead to an increase in accidents. The issue isn’t so much what damage a drone would cause if ingested by an A320 and more about the increased numbers of people operating these aircraft with little to no flying knowledge. The knock-on effect this would have, with the CAA clamping down on the remote sensing industry, is open to speculation.
I thought this might have something to do with Tupolevs. I remember they did something similar with plastic animals in Edinburgh. Again, they were plastered with various artwork.
I do wonder if this is another case of the deliberate targeted militancy by groups with agendas….
I do hope so!
You could display it in something akin to a large aquarium, with native species of aquatic flora and fauna for company.
At the risk of dragging this off topic, which aircraft is that? Off the top of my head I can think of the B25 Battle of Britain camera ship that ended up in sections. Is it that?
You don’t have to look too far to find other vintage airframes at risk of destruction. This is something I’ve always found fascinating, as it is a global phenomenon with the aviation enthusiast community. Find a completely smashed up B29 in the jungle somewhere, or blown to smithereens in China Lake, or chopped up and left to rot in a lake in Alaska, and people begin salivating at the thought of heisting it out of there using the most advanced technology. However there must be a solid half dozen B29s left as ‘birds on sticks’ at various air force bases across the US in next-to-derelict condition. The inner Indiana Jones appears to come out when the aircraft wreck is next to impossible to remove. I understand ‘Will it be at Legends?’ was a meme of sorts on here at one point in time, but there does seem to be the attitude that a rotten airframe is worth restoring whereas a neglected one is not. Cases in point, the Pershore collection or the Catalina at Weston that was scrapped only back in 2012.
Which is not, incidentally shared in every country.
A very good point. African cultures view the West as having collective mother issues over our pervasive obsession and sexualisation of breasts. When you consider it rationally, there is no reason to sexualise breasts, as they serve no reproductive function. Common sense and good manner don’t come into it, as these are entirely subjective concepts, and I don’t see any rights being violated here either on the part of the embarrassed parties. My right to not have to be in the same room as a woman breastfeeding? Laughable.
Re 263,
I thought you were generally in favour of personal liberty? What is the issue here? As far as I can tell, breasfeeding is only an issue because people wrongly sexualise it. I don’t feel sorry for those that feel embarrassed to be in the presence of a breastfeeding woman. That is their problem for them to overcome, not the fault of the mother. If anybody can demonstrate that there are ‘attention seeking earth mothers’ then please do! I’ve seen no evidence of this, and I do go outside once in a while.
Films, as reviewed by Temple Grandin.
I wish the BBC would stop giving Brand airtime. They did the same with Ross, under the mistaken belief that today’s yoof will tune in if these clowns are allowed to speak.
An academic point really, since no organisation, either from the UK or abroad, has expressed a serious interest in recovering it AFAIK.
Sounds like a job for….

That sounds a little like Sharia law to me.
I forgot about BMW’s ugly phase. That front end did them few favours.

Have car drivers always been as clueless about the dimensions of their vehicles??:(
Cars have steadily increased in size over the years. My parents’ house, constructed in the ’60s, has a garage suitable for a Morris Minor. My father tends to drive the Volkswagen model that represents the ‘Golf plus a boot’ model, be it the Jetta (’80s), Bora, Vento or Jetta (current). What he has found is that every iteration of this design of car has grown bigger. The new VW Polo is now as big as the first generation Golf, and VW have had to introduce the diminutive Up! and Fox models to fill the void at the tiny end.
As for drivers, perhaps the introduction of bigger cabin interiors and crumple zones creates a detachment from the surrounding environment that leads to careless driving.
As Bruce says the site wil not be empty, we still have 12 airframes and have just been granted planning permission to replace a building with a new one to house all the aircraft except the Shack, which has permission to be outside.
It is a shame that you didn’t have ‘permission’ to house the Shack as well.